Menu

DEAL OR NO DEAL – By Brian Rowan

Something has to change – and quickly – if Stormont is to survive the political fallout of recent times.

Phase two of the talking, which began last Monday, may well have some more structure, but little else.

“Too slow, no route to agreement, too much ‘f***ingaboutery’ on process,” was the blunt assessment of one insider.

It was a week for rolling eyes. Another period of talking that suggests little or no progress – perhaps another week wasted on a timetable that cannot afford such delay.

There is a different context to these talks that it seems some have not yet grasped.

The decision of Martin McGuinness to resign – to bring down the political institutions – was a popular one, and the election that followed changed everything. It ended the unionist majority at Stormont.

“Some would suggest Brexit was the cause,” new Ulster Unionist leader Robin Swann said at the weekend – “but who really thinks the reckless talk of crocodiles or the tactless decision to remove a £50,000 means tested scheme for young people to learn Irish had any other impact but to drive people to the polls?” he asked.

Swann reads the situation correctly.

That vote put Sinn Fein within a seat of the DUP – a little over a thousand votes now separates them and, in the wider Stormont frame, the overall unionist majority has gone.

This is the new context and that arithmetic is now part of these negotiations.

There is nothing to suggest that Adams will shift on the demand for a self-standing Irish Language Act.

And, within these talks, it is not just Sinn Fein who are insisting on this: “Given the attitude displayed by DUP politicians about the Irish language, it is now essential that we have an Irish Language Act that protects the rights of Irish language speakers,” SDLP leader Colum Eastwood told this website.

“This issue has come to symbolise the perceived attack on Irish identity and we need to move to a situation where all identities are equally respected,” he said.

This is but one issue. There are many others on which implementation is being demanded. Legacy is another; still bogged down in arguments about national security, a re-writing of history and the question of investigations.

On Tuesday, journalist John Ware will report on Operation Kenova – the Stakeknife investigation that will search the corners of the IRA and the places of intelligence:

“This is a Panorama investigation that confirms the grim reality of what was quite clearly more of an armed insurgency than ever a law and order context that successive ministers insisted on portraying it as,” Ware told eamonnmallie.com

“It’s also a commentary and a warning to be scrupulous in judging yesterday’s conduct with the benefit of post-conflict hindsight,” he said.

The past needs to be addressed within the frame of a political and peace process – not a police process.

Can governments and politicians do that?

Remember the reaction to the arrest of Gerry Adams in 2014. Watch for the reaction of others when, in their eyes, the ‘wrong person’ or the ‘wrong people’ are arrested.

As the debate on the past festers, it appears the aim is more some parade of shame rather than achieving answers alongside whatever healing and reconciliation are possible.

It is not a public consultation that is needed, but a completely different approach.

At the weekend, former Methodist President Harold Good was in Bayonne assisting the process of Eta disarmament. Also there was Chris Maccabe – former political director at the NIO.

Alongside some international figure, what could they bring to the legacy discussion here that could move it beyond this political battle.

For a start, they understand much more about this place than James Brokenshire and Charlie Flanagan ever will.

When he spoke in Bayonne on Saturday, Good looked beyond the Eta disarmament plan towards the “possibilities for a reconciliation and healing process”.

This is also needed here. The question of imprisonment needs to be addressed and there needs to be a realistic appraisal of what will be delivered from any information process. From governments, from the IRA, from loyalists, from others.

Recently John Kyle of the PUP wrote on this website: “We have procrastinated long enough to the detriment of victims and survivors. An inclusive process is essential and loyalism, which to date has been largely excluded from the process, is willing and ready to participate.”

Loyalists are still excluded. Would Harold Good make such a mistake on such an issue?

What is happening at Stormont Castle has all the appearance of business as usual – endless, pointless talking in circles.

Some think that Sinn Fein will step back from its stated position that it will not serve in an Executive with Arlene Foster until the report of the public inquiry into the RHI debacle is delivered.

Nothing has been said by Sinn Fein to suggest any such change in attitude.

These talks will not succeed if the plan and thinking is for some cobbled together deal. With some that penny has not yet dropped.

So, unless there are significant developments in the next few days, the Executive will not be restored.

4 thoughts on “DEAL OR NO DEAL – By Brian Rowan”

It seems to me that hardliners have no desire, passion if you will, to reconcile perceived differences. The passion for lasting unconditional peace and the true grit required for an open and honest reconciliation process is markedly absent. There is an absence of compassion for those families of the dead and dying, an empty absence of thought and compassion for all who did not take up arms of any kind during the last uprising, who continued to try through other means to live and work with their neighbours.
It seems to me that what was striking about Martin McGuinness’s inability to express regret for his past actions which may have harmed others, was a distinct lack of compassion for his younger self, such that he hadn’t any compassion for himself and had not forgiven himself. His legacy is that he left us all this insight into ourselves and each other. I respect my ancestors, I too am of them, but I am not them. We need to agree to reconcile, to reconcile and get on with living.

the exclusion of loyalist from any talks or process re the legacy issues reminds me of a time when the same loyalist and unionist British and free state governments excluded republicans , all their talks got no where and so it will be for these talks , all players need to be at that table otherwise no one will get truth , they have a story to tell about the many deaths committed by them and supported by the British security services

Of course all need to be at the table. The single biggest causlualty figure by category for the “troubles” was the 824 innocent Catholics slain by loyalists, often with the connivance or direct assistance of the British state. This is not in any way seeking to minimise all the other players’ roles. That should never be countenanced. However, any process which neglects to figure in the systemic sectarian hatred which largely fuelled the “troubles” and still underpins divisions is headed for trouble. The northern statelet could never have been other than it was. It was and is a failed entity. The plantation was just not successful enough or failed in its objectives, depending on your viewpoint. Natives were not sufficiently subdued, “civilisers” didn’t flourish in sufficient numbers. We all laboured under ithe plantation’s failed legacy. British policy was and is the cancer at the heart of our difficulties. We unfortunately still occupy this space, this narrow ground, and we need to find ways to share it. Time for truth. Time for change. Time for some real leadership.

Of course all need to be at the table. The single biggest casualty figure by category for the “troubles” was the 824 innocent Catholics slain by loyalists, often with the connivance or direct assistance of the British state. This is not in any way seeking to minimise all the other players’ roles. That should never be countenanced. However, any process which neglects to figure in the systemic sectarian hatred which largely fuelled the “troubles” and still underpins divisions is headed for trouble. The northern statelet could never have been other than it was. It was and is a failed entity. The plantation was just not successful enough or failed in its objectives, depending on your viewpoint. Natives were not sufficiently subdued, “civilisers” didn’t flourish in sufficient numbers. We all laboured under ithe plantation’s failed legacy. British policy was and is the cancer at the heart of our difficulties. We unfortunately still occupy this space, this narrow ground, and we need to find ways to share it. Time for truth. Time for change. Time for some real leadership.